From: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Wensong Zhang <wensong@linux-vs.org>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Subject: test
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:27:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091104202716.GE14821@hostway.ca> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1191 bytes --]
Hello!
I was noticing a significant amount of what seems/seemed to be
destination lists with multiple entries with the lblcr LVS algorithm.
While tracking it down, I think I stumbled over a mistake. In
ip_vs_lblcr_full_check(), it appears the time check logic is reversed:
for (i=0, j=tbl->rover; i<IP_VS_LBLCR_TAB_SIZE; i++) {
j = (j + 1) & IP_VS_LBLCR_TAB_MASK;
write_lock(&svc->sched_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(en, nxt, &tbl->bucket[j], list) {
if (time_after(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
now))
continue;
ip_vs_lblcr_free(en);
atomic_dec(&tbl->entries);
}
write_unlock(&svc->sched_lock);
}
Shouldn't this be "time_before"? It seems that it currently nukes all
recently-used entries every time this function is called, which seems to
be every 30 minutes, rather than removing the not-recently-used ones.
If my reading is correct, this patch should fix it. Am I missing
something?
Cheers,
Simon-
[-- Attachment #2: lblcr+full_check_time_fix.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 535 bytes --]
diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
index 715b57f..937743f 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
@@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static inline void ip_vs_lblcr_full_check(struct ip_vs_service *svc)
write_lock(&svc->sched_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(en, nxt, &tbl->bucket[j], list) {
- if (time_after(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
+ if (time_before(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
now))
continue;
next reply other threads:[~2009-11-04 20:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-04 20:27 Simon Kirby [this message]
2009-11-05 9:26 ` test Julian Anastasov
2009-11-05 10:11 ` test Simon Kirby
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-07-28 23:37 [syzbot] [bpf?] KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds Write in __bpf_get_stackid syzbot
2025-10-12 13:56 ` test Arnaud lecomte
2022-09-28 6:58 [PATCH] taprio: Set the value of picos_per_byte before fill sched_entry jianghaoran
2022-09-30 2:18 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-09-30 13:58 ` test jianghaoran
2019-09-07 5:01 test Rain River
2013-06-04 6:04 test Ding Tianhong
2010-11-27 3:01 test lkernmnet
2005-05-05 18:30 test Vlad Yasevich
2002-11-07 13:54 test Jacky Hsiao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091104202716.GE14821@hostway.ca \
--to=sim@hostway.ca \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wensong@linux-vs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).